Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Failure rates and functional results for intercalary femur reconstructions after tumour resection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results for patients treated with intercalary endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) or intercalary allograft reconstruction for diaphyseal tumours of the femur in terms of: (1) reconstruction failure rates; (2) cause of failure; (3) risk of amputation of the limb; and (4) functional result.

Methods

Patients with bone sarcomas of the femoral diaphysis, treated with en bloc resection and reconstructed with an intercalary EPR or allograft, were reviewed. A total of 107 patients were included in the study (36 EPR and 71 intercalary allograft reconstruction). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of follow-up, age, gender and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

The probability of failure for intercalary EPR was 36% at 5 years and 22% for allograft at 5 years (p = 0.26). Mechanical failures were the most prevalent in both types of reconstruction. Aseptic loosening and implant fracture are the main cause in the EPR group. For intercalary allograft reconstructions, fracture followed by nonunion was the most common complication. Ten-year risk of amputation after failure for both reconstructions was 3%. There were no differences between the groups in terms of the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (27.4, range 16–30 vs. 27.6, range 17–30).

Conclusions

We have demonstrated similar failure rates for both reconstructions. In both techniques, mechanical failure was the most common complication with a low rate of limb amputation and good functional results.

Level of evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benevenia J, Kirchner R, Patterson F, Beebe K, Wirtz DC, Rivero S, Palma M, Friedrich MJ (2016) Outcomes of a modular intercalary endoprosthesis as treatment for segmental defects of the femur, tibia, and humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):539–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jeys LM, Kulkarni A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A (2008) Endoprosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the appendicular skeleton and pelvis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(6):1265–1271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mankin HJ, Doppelt SH, Sullivan TR, Tomford WW (1982) Osteoarticular and intercalary allograft transplantation in the management of malignant tumors of bone. Cancer 15(50):613–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abudu A, Carter SR, Grimer RJ (1996) The outcome and functional results of diaphyseal endoprostheses after tumour excision. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78:652–657

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Aponte-Tinao L, Farfalli GL, Ritacco LE, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL (2012) Intercalary femur allografts are an acceptable alternative after tumor resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):728–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Donati D, Capanna R, Campanacci D, Del Ben M, Ercolani C, Masetti C, Taminiau A, Exner GU, Dubousset JF, Paitout D et al (1993) The use of massive bone allografts for intercalary reconstruction and arthrodeses after tumor resection. A multicentric European study. Chir Organi Mov 78(2):81–94

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao L, Ranalletta M, Abalo E (2004) Intercalary femur and tibia segmental allografts provide an acceptable alternative in reconstructing tumor resections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ortiz-Cruz EJ, Gebhardt MC, Jennings LC, Springfield DS, Mankin HJ (1997) The results of transplantation of intercalary allografts after resection of tumors: a long-term follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:97–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ceruso M, Falcone C, Innocenti M, Delcroix L, Capanna R, Manfrini M (2001) Skeletal reconstruction with a free vascularized fibula graft associated to bone allograft after resection of malignant bone tumor of limbs. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 33:277–282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang DW, Weber KL (2005) Use of a vascularized fibula bone flap and intercalary allograft for diaphyseal reconstruction after resection of primary extremity bone sarcomas. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1918–1925

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Krieg AH, Davidson AW, Stalley PD (2007) Intercalary femoral reconstruction with extracorporeal irradiated autogenous bone graft in limb-salvage surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89(3):366–371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakamura T, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Jeys L, Tillman RM (2013) The clinical outcomes of extracorporeal irradiated and re-implanted cemented autologous bone graft of femoral diaphysis after tumour resection. Int Orthop 37(4):647–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cañadell J, Forriol F, Cara JA (1994) Removal of metaphyseal bone tumours with preservation of the epiphysis: physeal distraction before excision. J Bone Jt Surg Br 76:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tsuchiya H, Tomita K, Minematsu K, Mori Y, Asada N, Kitano S (1997) Limb salvage using distraction osteogenesis: a classification of the technique. J Bone Jt Surg Br 79:403–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bus MP, Dijkstra PD, van de Sande MA, Taminiau AH, Schreuder HW, Jutte PC, van der Geest IC, Schaap GR, Bramer JA (2014) Intercalary allograft reconstructions following resection of primary bone tumors: a nationwide multicenter study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96(4):e26. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00655

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Aldlyami E, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM (2005) Endoprosthetic replacement of diaphyseal bone defects. Long-term results. Int Orthop 29(1):25–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL (2015) Should fractures in massive intercalary bone allografts of the lower limb be treated with ORIF or with a new allograft? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(3):805–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frisoni T, Cevolani L, Giorgini A, Dozza B, Donati DM (2012) Factors affecting outcome of massive intercalary bone allografts in the treatment of tumours of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94(6):836–841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson RC, Pickvance EA, Garry D (1993) Fractures in large segment allografts. J Bone Jt Surg Am 75:1663–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moran SL, Shin AY, Bishop AT (2006) The use of massive bone allograft with intramedullary free fibular flap for limb salvage in a pediatric and adolescent population. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:413–419

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hsu RW, Wood M, Sim FH, Chao EY (1997) Free vascularized fibular grafting for reconstruction after tumour resection. J Bone Jt Surg Br 79:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zaretski A, Amir A, Meller I, Leshem D, Kollender Y, Barnea Y, Bickels J, Shpitzer T, Ad-El D, Gur E (2004) Free fibula long bone reconstruction in orthopedic oncology: a surgical algorithm for reconstructive options. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1989–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao L, Farfalli G (2008) Allograft reconstruction after sarcoma resection in children younger than 10 years old. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1856–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA (2006) Massive allograft use in orthopedic oncology. Orthop Clin North Am 37:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanna SA, Sewell MD, Aston WJ, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2010) Femoral diaphyseal endoprosthetic reconstruction after segmental resection of primary bonetumours. J Bone Jt Surg Br 92(6):867–874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson ER, O’Connor MI, Ruggieri P, Windhager R, Funovics PT, Gibbons CL, Guo W, Hornicek FJ, Temple HT, Letson GD (2014) Classification of failure of limb salvage after reconstructive surgery for bone tumors: a modified system including biological and expandable reconstructions. Bone Jt J 96:1436–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ (1993) A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:241–246

    Google Scholar 

  28. Albergo JI, Gaston CL, Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL, Jeys LM, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu AT, Grimer RJ (2017) Proximal tibia reconstruction after bone tumor resection: are survivorship and outcomes of endoprosthetic replacement and osteoarticular allograft similar? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(3):676–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ritacco LE, Farfalli GL, Milano FE, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Aponte-Tinao L (2013) Validity of an automatic measure protocol in distal femur for allograft selection from a three-dimensional virtual bone bank system. Cell Tissue Bank 14(2):213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ (2007) The long-term results of endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for bone tumors. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 89:1632–1637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.Rproject.org. Accessed Aug 2016

  32. Gupta S, Kafchinski LA, Gundle KR, Saidi K, Griffin AM, Wunder JS, Ferguson PC (2017) Intercalary allograft augmented with intramedullary cement and plate fixation is a reliable solution after resection of a diaphyseal tumour. Bone Jt J 299-B(7):973–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Campanacci DA, Totti F, Puccini S, Beltrami G, Scoccianti G, Del Croix L, Innocenti M, Capanna R (2018) Intercalary reconstruction of femur after tumour resection: is a vascularized fibular autograft plus allograft a long-lasting solution? Bone Jt J 100-B(3):378–386

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Campanacci DA, Puccini S, Caff G, Beltrami G, Piccioli A, Innocenti M, Capanna R (2014) Vascularized fibular grafts as a salvage procedure in failed intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resection of the femur. Injury 45(2):399–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. San-Julian M, Dolz R, Garcia-Barrecheguren E, Noain E, Sierrasesumaga L, Cañadell J (2003) Limb salvage in bone sarcomas in patients younger than age 10: a 20-year experience. J Pediatr Orthop 23:753–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carlos E. Ottolenghi Institute of Orthopedics, Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Potosí 4247 (1199), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    J. I. Albergo, G. L. Farfalli, M. A. Ayerza, M. Risk & L. A. Aponte-Tinao

  2. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK

    L. C. Gaston, M. Laitinen, M. Parry & L. M. Jeys

  3. Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    M. Laitinen

Authors
  1. J. I. Albergo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. C. Gaston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. L. Farfalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Laitinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Parry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. A. Ayerza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Risk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. M. Jeys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. L. A. Aponte-Tinao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. I. Albergo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albergo, J.I., Gaston, L.C., Farfalli, G.L. et al. Failure rates and functional results for intercalary femur reconstructions after tumour resection. Musculoskelet Surg 104, 59–65 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00595-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00595-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation